Heck, what Nixon did in covering up Watergate is nothing in comparison to what Obama has done with respect to the consequences of his actions. If Nixon was worthy of Impeachment then Obama certainly is!

That came from somewhere, or do you think that it simply emerged from the ether?

Someone lied.

And a war was waged on that basis. "

Bill, there is on BIG difference, it was based on intelligence that happened to be faulty. Whereas, Obama LIED about the intelligence. Please, point to the obvious lie by the Bush administration and please show me the cover up?

Bush was likely quite wrong, but you are not stupid enough to believe it was a lie, and even if you are that stupid, you are not stupid enough to believe it can be remotely proven to be a lie.

Someone lied. Or do you think that particular charge just emerged from thin air?

And a war was waged on that basis.

===========================

First, Bush and his team WERE wrong.

Second, Bush and his team didn't understand and respect the purpose and structure of the organizations underneath them in both intelligence and defense. In a country of 314,570,798 people with diplomatic and military presences in hundreds of countries, it is IMPOSSIBLE for our intelligence and defense communities to "catch" every threat, analyze it for its source and possible impacts and get that analysis fed northward to "senior management" in a matter of hours, days or weeks. However, those same organizatins ARE structured and staffed to carefully review the "big picture" and incorporate that insight into the formulation of proactive strategies once "senior management" decides to ACT and do something "big."

Can we all agree that launching a war on the other side of the globe in a desert against a country with completely unfamiliar language and culture constitutes doing something "big"?

The Bush Administration (elected officials and appointees) ignored the normal layers of review, analysis and filtering inherent in the intelligence and defense organizations and reached into those organizations for snippets of "information" that supported the conclusions they had already reached. When did they reach their conclusion on invading Iraq?

The snowflake had arrived on September 13, two days before the Camp David war council. Rumsfeld's Pentagon was one step ahead of the President. By the time Bush ordered that a contingency plan for Iraq be drawn up, the effort was already quietly underway. -- page 19 of COBRA II by Michael Gordon and General Bernard Trainor

The plan for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein went through five iterations from September 13, 2001 to Fall 2002. Michael Gordon's analysis in COBRA II makes it clear none of these shuffles in the plan were driven by bottom-up feedback from the military operations staffs but by a top-down drive from Donald Rumsfeld to reduce troops and materiel levels to prove "new wars" could be won with a leaner, meaner military strategy. If you want details, read the book or read an old review of it:

The word "lie" is really not the applicable term to use in terms of the policy setting and military strategy in Iraq. It's too easy to weasel away from proof that "Fact A" was known and conveyed as "False Fact B" --- the teams involved failed to objectively consider all facts present and could just claim they never saw Fact A but they never "saw" it because they never sought it. Adjectives like "incompetent", "pig-headed", "arrogant" and "idealogically blinded" all do apply. In the context of sending the country to war for a decade, committing $807 billion dollars in direct costs we didn't have and refused to raise in taxes to pay for, killing 4,486 US troops, wounding over 31,928 US troops, and exposing over 2.3 million troops to repeated combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and the associated risk of PTSD, a lie didn't have to be involved to justify impeaching Bush.

The word "lie" is really not the applicable term to use in terms of the policy setting and military strategy in Iraq. It's too easy to weasel away from proof that "Fact A" was known and conveyed as "False Fact B" --- the teams involved failed to objectively consider all facts present and could just claim they never saw Fact A but they never "saw" it because they never sought it. Adjectives like "incompetent", "pig-headed", "arrogant" and "idealogically blinded" all do apply. In the context of sending the country to war for a decade, committing $807 billion dollars in direct costs we didn't have and refused to raise in taxes to pay for, killing 4,486 US troops, wounding over 31,928 US troops, and exposing over 2.3 million troops to repeated combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and the asso___________________________________________

yada yada yada

You hate Bush, find. Bush was incompetent fine

Argue to your little heart content. I really no longer car to defend or attack Bush

THe question was solely in context of did Obama lie. If so was there a precedent in what Bush did

Well incompetence is rank in the Obama administration. From fast and furious which at the very least is brutal incompetence, to not having security in place in Libya, to allocating money to bad solar companies, to putting Eric Holder in charge of anything and on and on and on

So if you want to impeach for incompetence go for it.

The question remains, where was the lie. Nixon ? He lied and covered up. Obama he certainly lies, and it very much appears there was a massive cove up ever since on every level the administration touches and even deeper to arresting the poor putz who put out the video that the administration used as a rather lame excuse.

You can try to change the topic all you want. And your screed was nothing but that.

Obama was and is a liar, and got caught red handed. Bush may have been totally incompetent. But those claiming he was a liar have zilch except conspiracy theories. There was a lot of backup of Bush's beliefs. To say otherwise is simply to be lying about Bush, just as they and many have chosen to lie about the simple and obvious truth regarding Obama

" In a country of 314,570,798 people with diplomatic and military presences in hundreds of countries, it is IMPOSSIBLE for our intelligence and defense communities to "catch" every threat, analyze it for its source and possible impacts and get that analysis fed northward to "senior management" in a matter of hours, days or weeks"

" In a country of 314,570,798 people with diplomatic and military presences in hundreds of countries, it is IMPOSSIBLE for our intelligence and defense communities to "catch" every threat, analyze it for its source and possible impacts and get that analysis fed northward to "senior management" in a matter of hours, days or weeks"

___________________________________

Yes I fully understand how the intelligence report from Monacco or Belgium or perhaps San MArino had to be read, so that no one could get to Libya for a while

As I pointed out for years, the intelligence community from multiple nations said there were WMD's in Iraq under Husseins control.

This was true in GB I, during Clinton 1 and 2, and most certainly in GB 2. It was also rumored strongly under Reagan. Hussein himself promoted the idea, and from his acts against his own people, demonstrated that he was likely telling the truth.

So if there were lies, they were international lies perpetrated by the intelligence services world wide - not just in our nation.

A war was waged on that basis and others. It was an outgrowth of the actions taken after 9-11 - not totally unrelated.

I don't know why I bothered to answer this - there is nothing that will convince a leftist to look at unbiased face.

You folk won't even look at JFK's speeches to learn your own history. Why would you look at anything else that disagrees with your worldview.

The US intelligence agencies specifically told GWB there was no proof of WMDs in Iraq--well before he gave his speech. Ah, that is right--conservatives have their own "proof" (their imagination). Found those WMDs in Iraq yet? Why not? Don't stop digging until you find them.

The US intelligence agencies specifically told GWB there was no proof of WMDs in Iraq--well before he gave his speech.

Just like the agencies specifically told BHO that there were no "video protests" before al queda attacked the Beghazi consulate. But he went on "The View" and told the world "it wasn't because we don't protect our consulates, it's just that this religious video offended Muslims.

Just like the agencies specifically told BHO that there were no "video protests" before al queda attacked the Beghazi consulate.

Based on YOUR statement ('no "video protests"'), that means there was no need for additional security in Benghazi--and the killing of the staff by the terrorists using RPGs was "routine" because that is a known and accepted hazard of the job. Pick your poison and drink deep....

Based on YOUR statement ('no "video protests"'), that means there was no need for additional security in Benghazi--and the killing of the staff by the terrorists using RPGs was "routine" because that is a known and accepted hazard of the job. Pick your poison and drink deep....

The multiple requests for additional security from the people who spent their day in the consulate, plus the fact that it was the anniversary of 9/11 means nothing to you.

there is nothing that will convince a leftist to look at unbiased face

Looks the same from here. Ther is nothing that will convince the true beleivers that the war in Iraq was foisted upon us by con men who had major economic interests in getting the US GOVT to contract with them to get the jobs done. You mention JFK and say Democrats are not reading him. How many Republicans are reading DDE